On Saturday, June 21, 1997 1:01 PM, Peter Murray-Rust
[SMTP:Peter@ursus.demon.co.uk] wrote:
> In my grove-illiterate opinion, yes! The PropertySet is a sword of Damocles
> hanging over these discussions. It's clear that we can't have all 70+
> properties. IF (and I hope it's not a big IF) we can agree on a subset
> of the property set then we don't have this problem dissipating the
> discussion every time we get close :-)
It shouldn't be a big IF at all. Deciding what to rip out isn't too difficult.
The only problem lies in agreeing on how to do the additional classes (like
XMLDECL) needed and how (or if) the properties should be modularised.
> James Clark came up with a grove subset about 3 months back (have a look in
> March xml-dev) in response to one of my typical blunderings for information.
I'll go back and check that. JamesC would be in a MUCH better position to write
an XML property set than me!
James 'the other James' Tauber :-)
xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/
To unsubscribe, send to majordomo@ic.ac.uk the following message;
unsubscribe xml-dev
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (rzepa@ic.ac.uk)